A roundtable at the National School of Drama examines the limits of creative freedom.
Note this: “A political rally with a large gathering is an environment that can evoke sharp and strong responses, and it often does, leading to inflamed passions, violence and aggression. But an inflammatory speech by a political or religious leader does not come under any clause that requires pre-censorship while as per our constitution, theatre performances or a film screening requires pre-censorship as they appeal to so many senses. In addition to this, there is the possibility of invoking articles 153A and 295A of the criminal law that are to do with obscenity, outraging of religious sentiment and promoting enmity etc, in other words, a way to further harass artistes.” This was a point underlined by a legal expert at a round table at the National School of Drama, New Delhi centred on the issue of censorship in the arts, on the occasion of its twelfth Theatre Utsav. I had never seen it in this perspective, and being made to see it thus, I felt like congratulating myself for being involved in such an important and potent medium which demands special attention from the state.
This was a gathering of varied artistes, publishers, journalists, lawyers and activists to talk about their position on censorship. Eminent theatre director and actress Vijaya Mehta chaired the session and opened it with questions about why censorship comes into operation. Is it because the artistes do not exercise sufficient self-censorship? Is it that they do not recognise that freedom of expression has to go hand in hand with responsibility? How much of it is imposed by reactionary political institutions, and how much of it is imposed by the mob? In other words she was stating that there is a need for some kind of censorship as chances of artistes wanting to be provocative under the guise of creativity are high. Coming from Maharashtra, she brings with her an awareness of the gimmicks that commercial theatre/theatre artistes can employ to gain publicity.
Most did not really agree with this position and, were largely against censorship of any kind by any body.
And the standard argument about who can be the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong was reiterated. Theatre is a collective art and in the process of working with that collective, any text would automatically undergo self-censorship depending on the comfort factor of the actor. There is not and cannot be any absolute neutral entity who would set the parameters where the boundary of obscenity is located or what can be legitimate cause for hurt. Hence most often the state takes the easier way out by giving in to politicised agitations.
A publisher stated the case of a state government that adheres to leftist progressive ideology, not only banning a book by a Bangladeshi writer but virtually ostracising her. Several other cases of such censorship and threats to theatre workers came up from practitioners from other states, and each artiste felt that the choice before them was to either compromise or become a martyr. Shiva Panikkar, the eminent art historian and Dean of Baroda Art Department who remains under suspension for defending the work of one of his students was a living example of such victimisation for defying censorship and threats.
Among the suggestions that came up to get rid of this menace was one, to make an active forum that would ask for removal of the legal provision for state censorship of the arts. The other was to link the arts closely to the community so that it gives you protection from assaults on your freedom of expression.
(The author is a former director of the National School of Drama, New Delhi)
